CPennypacker:Dimensio: You have openly admitted to disregarding the intent of the Bill of Rights in deriving your "interpretation" of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, meaning that no reason exists to trust your interpretation as being representative of its original intent. How, exactly, is noting this fact indicative of mental instability?

If you truly believe that the intent of the bill of rights is to limit the government's power over natural rights then I don't see how my opinion is inconsistent with that. It is just a slightly different restriction on government power based on the consideration of what the right to bear arms really means in the context of the second amendment,

Dimensio:Please explain how banning all semi-automatic firearms and handguns and prohibiting you from accessing any functional firearm in your home is an infringement on your right to keep and bear arms.

You've generally been pretty reasonable in these threads, so I'm surprised you're going with the muskets-only theory.

in·fringe1. Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".2. Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy"

Regardless of whether those restrictions might work, it's pretty damn hard to argue that they wouldn't "limit" peoples' rights. Those bans are by definition limits which would undermine the intent of the second amendment, which was to allow people to defend themselves individually, and for the people as a whole to defend themselves against their government if it should ever stop acting in the interests of the people.

I took the opportunity to examine the site that you referenced; the site allows customers to arrange firearm purchases for pick-up at a physical store. It in no way allows customers to order firearms for delivery to their homes, and your comparison of that website to such a delivery service is demonstrably false.

I have heard rumors that somewhere in the back of the ACA one of its acts forces everyone to house a soldier so that they can regulate the amount of HFCS consumed per houshould. It is estimated that this will save the govt 3T over the next 2 years.

the_foo:Dimensio: Please explain how banning all semi-automatic firearms and handguns and prohibiting you from accessing any functional firearm in your home is an infringement on your right to keep and bear arms.

You've generally been pretty reasonable in these threads, so I'm surprised you're going with the muskets-only theory.

in·fringe1. Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".2. Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy"

Regardless of whether those restrictions might work, it's pretty damn hard to argue that they wouldn't "limit" peoples' rights. Those bans are by definition limits which would undermine the intent of the second amendment, which was to allow people to defend themselves individually, and for the people as a whole to defend themselves against their government if it should ever stop acting in the interests of the people.

Evidently, I have yet to adequately grasp the human technique known as "sarcasm".

mrshowrules:BraveNewCheneyWorld: Ablejack: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: My right to own an inanimate object trumps your right to live

Blatant false dichotomy is blatantly false.

The well regulated militia is well regulated.

It seems I have to post this in every gun thread, because there's someone like you who is ignorant to the fact that words and phrases change over time.

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Those examples are all hyphenated. I don't think it is hyphenated in the actual 2nd Amendment text.

Also those examples are all in Arial font whereas the constitution is old English script so they cant mean the same thing.

sammyk:nekom: sammyk: Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.

Tough nut to crack, though. Background checks, for instance, aren't the end all beat all. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for enhanced background checks, but the newton massacre was carried out by lawfully purchased guns stolen from a crazy person's mother. Assault weapons bans may have some merit, but you could easily carry out the same sort of mass murder with a few semiautomatic pistols. Now I'm not saying "It's an impossible task, so why even try?", I'm saying we need some better answers. I don't really have them, at least none that are the slightest bit politically viable here. Banning all but single shot rifles and shotguns would probably help immensely, but fat chance of ever seeing that happen here.

Interesting thing about background checks. 20 years ago the Brady act was signed into law implementing actual background checks. Lo and behold 20 years later gun violence is cut in half. But I am sure there will be someone here shortly to tell us the 2 things are in no way connected.

Well, in that same time span concealed carry has grown from a handful of states to all but one and gun sales have grown tremendously, but I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell us that's not important to consider either.

Background checks are responsible for the drop in shootings and overall crime because they started 20 years ago, but the rapid spread of concealed carry isn't even though that trend started at about the same time. Got it.

Here's a news flash, the biggest single factor is probably the aging population. As a nation, we're older and old people don't go around shooting folks nearly as much as the younger crowd.

I'm actually in favor of expanded background checks, but they stop practically no crime. They simply protect the seller from civil and maybe criminal liability.

nekom:I have a 6 year old daughter, I would prefer to live in a world where some lunatic will not shoot up her school.

Then you'd better move to a deserted island or self-colonize another planet because folks have been attacking schools for centuries and will do so forever. There is no better terror target that someone's children.

I have a 3 year old and I'm far more worried about her drowning in a pool, getting abused by a teacher/caregiver, or even getting bitten by a venomous snake while playing in our yard than I am of her school getting shot up because all of those are statistically far more likely to happen.

MJMaloney187:soakitincider: 2nd amendment:"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

See that part about "a well regulated militia"? That means the Federal Government has the authority to enforce enhanced background checks. Anybody who says otherwise is only seeing what they want to see.

GoldSpider:udhq: Overall crime has been falling for almost 30 years, thanks to a variety of environmental factors: mainly, abortion and the removal of lead from gasoline.

dafuq?

I assume you've at least heard of the abortion argument made in the book Freakonomics, no? The argument is that since Roe, abortion has been most prevalent among the demographics most likely to produce criminals, i.e. poor people prone to high-risk behavior. Thus, we've essentially limited the size of this generation's criminal demographic.

The gasoline argument is fascinating, but the central theory is that lead is a primary cause of any number of cognitive and developmental disorders that can predispose a person towards anti-social behavior. There's a direct correlation that can be drawn with each country's decision to go lead-free, and their crime rates dropping by 10-20% in the following decade.

dittybopper:CPennypacker: Because its not the race, its the economic condition.

Actually, it's *NOT* economic condition. There are more than twice as many whites living below the poverty line than blacks (10 million vs. 4 million).

I did that calculation a while back:

In the United States, there are more than twice as many whites living in the lowest poverty level (50% or lower than the official poverty level) than blacks (10.120 million vs. 4.215 million) Source: US Census Bureau Poverty Tables.

MJMaloney187:See that part about "a well regulated militia"? That means the Federal Government has the authority to enforce enhanced background checks. Anybody who says otherwise is only seeing what they want to see.

There's a specific area of the Constitution that outlines what the federal government has the authority to do.

What do I have to do to buy a gun online or by phone?Legally when an individual wants to buy a gun through the mail they must have it shipped to a Federal Firearms License (FFL) holder. However if you do not have an FFL you can still order online.First find a local gun store or other FFL holder in your area and get their permission to have a gun shipped to them from J&G. Most dealers will do a transfer for you for a small fee.Second have them send us a signed in ink, legible, copy of their FFL via fax, email, or mail. (C&R licenses can be mailed, or are also accepted via fax or email if a copy of the driver's license with matching name is included.) Please include the phone number and contact name. This only needs to be sent once as it is kept on file until it expires.Third once we have the FFL on file you can order online being sure to enter the FFL's info in the space for shipping address and your info in the space for billing address. We can then ship to the dealers place of business and you can pick up your gun from them meeting all local state and federal laws. If you order and we have no FFL on file we will email you back explaining that you need an FFL causing your order to be delayed. All items are subject to prior sale, an order is not considered complete until all documents are received.

Tomahawk513:Endive Wombat: Tomahawk513: When I'm trying to determine the number of people killed by [object], my primary consideration is this: would the person have died if [object] did not exist? History, and plenty of data have shown that when it comes to suicide, if you remove the [object], or even make it inconvenient, the person is substantially less likely to attempt suicide, and less likely still to be successful. Whether or not suicide is a crime is irrelevant, we're not measuring how many crimes in which a gun was used result in death.

Again, fair enough...sure perhaps suicide gun deaths may go down as the availability of guns becomes less and less. But back to my original point - When politicians try to site all gun deaths (murder, suicide, self-protection, death by police, accidents) as a basis for restricting access to guns and using "won't somebody please think of the children" Sandyhook, Aurora, etc...it is in effect, lying

There are about 30,000+ deaths per year by gun.

There are about 19,000+ deaths per year by suicide by gun

This leaves about 11,000+ deaths by violent crime, death by police, accident and self-protection (6000+ of which are related to outright homicide)

Soooooo...Leftist politicians like to site the 30,000+ gun deaths per year as a reason for their newest anti-gun legislation, and mention protecting children, mass shootings, intercity crime, etc.

Do you now see where I am coming from?

To your credit, I don't think much of the recent legislation would have had any effect on suicide deaths by firearm, but who knows. If it were up to me, I'd require a Mental Health pass/fail as part of the background check, HIPAA be damned. If we want "crazies" to stop getting access to guns, this would go a long way to that effect.

But that aside, suicides still count as part of the gun death total because in the absence of the gun, it's substantially less likely the person would have successfully committed suicide.

I thought the left was all for euthanasia. I would think that would make access to a gun a right they would protect. Guns are a messy way to go but they fast, painless and relatively sure.

Endive Wombat:Huh? No matter how you kill yourself, you're dead! I am not clear on what you are trying to get at here...

I'm trying to get at the fact that guns are a far more lethal means of attempting suicide. Let's say 100 people attempt suicide today. Of those 100 people, 6 use a gun and 94 use some other means. The statistics I cited previously show that of those 100 people who attempted suicide, about 9 would have been successful. Of those 9 who were successful, 5 used a gun. For added clarification, let's take the analogy out of the gun-suicide debate. Let's say 100 of us drove to work in cars today. Of those 100, 6 of us have Jeeps. On the way to work, 5 of the 6 Jeeps stalled out on the highway, while only 4 of the remaining 94 cars that weren't Jeeps stalled. What conclusions would you draw about Jeeps?

You can order them over the internet, but you have to pick it up at the store. And it goes without saying, since they are an FFL, you need a NICS check run.

In fact, if you go to the FAQ at their website, this is what you'll see:

What do I have to do to buy a gun online or by phone?Legally when an individual wants to buy a gun through the mail they must have it shipped to a Federal Firearms License (FFL) holder. However if you do not have an FFL you can still order online.First find a local gun store or other FFL holder in your area and get their permission to have a gun shipped to them from J&G. Most dealers will do a transfer for you for a small fee.Second have them send us a signed in ink, legible, copy of their FFL via fax, email, or mail. (C&R licenses can be mailed, or are also accepted via fax or email if a copy of the driver's license with matching name is included.) Please include the phone number and contact name. This only needs to be sent once as it is kept on file until it expires.Third once we have the FFL on file you can order online being sure to enter the FFL's info in the space for shipping address and your info in the space for billing address. We can then ship to the dealers place of business and you can pick up your gun from them meeting all local state and federal laws. If you order and we have no FFL on file we will email you back explaining that you need an FFL causing your order to be delayed. All items are subject to prior sale, an order is not considered complete until all documents are received.

Source4leko:mrshowrules: The U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population.

A declining rate doesn't mean jack shiat.

If you really think this you are an idiot.

Yeah, gun violence is down, we just have to suffer through another school shooting every few years. Libs should grow a sack, right? We shouldn't be looking at actually, you know, having a comprehensive firearms regulation policy because 2nd Amendment.

cman:dittybopper: CPennypacker: Because its not the race, its the economic condition.

Actually, it's *NOT* economic condition. There are more than twice as many whites living below the poverty line than blacks (10 million vs. 4 million).

I did that calculation a while back:

In the United States, there are more than twice as many whites living in the lowest poverty level (50% or lower than the official poverty level) than blacks (10.120 million vs. 4.215 million) Source: US Census Bureau Poverty Tables.

vpb:Yes, those tough anti gun laws in some parts are starting to pay off.

Now we need to expand on a winning strategy.

/look at where the gun violence is highest

Wow, it's almost like regions with a lot of crime use laws to crack down on it in response. I guess by your logic, aspirin gives people headaches because most of the people taking it are in pain.

soakitincider:2nd amendment:"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Your rights are not absolute. You can't use freedom of speech to commit slander and you shouldn't be able to have an assault weapon with a 50-round magazine without even undergoing a background check. Man up and take responsibility.

mrshowrules:Source4leko: mrshowrules: The U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population.

A declining rate doesn't mean jack shiat.

If you really think this you are an idiot.

If you don't think the US has a problem with gun violence, good for you I suppose. I'm Canadian, so I'm not stressed either way.

If you seriously think that declining rates of this crime occurring mean nothing then I don't even know what to say to you. Do declining rates of pollution not mean that pollution controls are working?

CPennypacker:dittybopper: CPennypacker: Because its not the race, its the economic condition.

Actually, it's *NOT* economic condition. There are more than twice as many whites living below the poverty line than blacks (10 million vs. 4 million).

I did that calculation a while back:

In the United States, there are more than twice as many whites living in the lowest poverty level (50% or lower than the official poverty level) than blacks (10.120 million vs. 4.215 million) Source: US Census Bureau Poverty Tables.